1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{a4wide,axodraw}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \voffset0cm
6: \hoffset0cm
7: \oddsidemargin0cm
8: \evensidemargin0cm
9: \topmargin0cm
10: \textwidth16.cm
11: \textheight22cm
12: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
13:
14: %\usepackage{psfrag}
15: %\usepackage[bf,small]{caption}
16: %\usepackage{exscale}
17: %\usepackage{latexsym}
18: %\usepackage{graphicx}
19: \usepackage{amsmath}
20: %\usepackage{amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,bbm}
21: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
22: %\usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}
23: %\usepackage{slashed}
24: \usepackage{feynarts,axodraw,graphicx}
25: %\usepackage{fancyhdr}
26: %\usepackage{vmargin}
27: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
28: %\usepackage[notcite,notref]{showkeys}
29: %\allowdisplaybreaks[1]
30:
31: \newcommand{\re}{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}\nolimits}
32: \newcommand{\li}{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}_2}\nolimits}
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
36:
37: \catcode`@=11
38: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
39: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
40: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
41: \newcount\@tempcntc
42: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
43: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
44: {\@ifundefined
45: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
46: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
47: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
48: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
49: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
50: \else
51: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
52: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
53: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
54: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
55: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
56: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
57: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
58: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
59: \catcode`@=12
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61:
62: \begin{document}
63: \thispagestyle{empty}
64: \title{
65: \vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
66: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 07-103\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
67: \centerline{\normalsize MPP-2007-96\hfill}
68: \centerline{\normalsize July 2007\hfill}}
69: \vskip1.5cm
70: \boldmath
71: \bf Electroweak corrections to $W$-boson hadroproduction at finite transverse
72: momentum
73: \unboldmath}
74:
75: \author{W. Hollik${}^{\rm a}$, T. Kasprzik${}^{\rm a}$,
76: B.A. Kniehl${}^{\rm b}$\bigskip
77: \\
78: {\normalsize\it ${}^{\rm a}$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik
79: (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut),}\\
80: {\normalsize\it F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany}\bigskip
81: \\
82: {\normalsize\it ${}^{\rm b}$ II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
83: Universit\"at Hamburg,}\\
84: {\normalsize\it Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
85:
86: \date{}
87:
88: \maketitle
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91: We calculate the full one-loop electroweak radiative corrections to the
92: cross section of single $W$-boson inclusive hadroproduction at finite
93: transverse momentum ($p_T$).
94: This includes the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ corrections to $W+j$ production, the
95: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections to $W+\gamma$ production, and the
96: tree-level contribution from $W+j$ photoproduction with one direct or resolved
97: photon in the initial state.
98: We present the integrated cross section as a function of a minimum-$p_T$
99: cut as well as the $p_T$ distribution for the experimental conditions at
100: the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN LHC and estimate the theoretical
101: uncertainties.
102: \medskip
103:
104: \noindent
105: PACS: 12.15.Lk, 12.38.Bx, 13.85.Fb, 13.85.Qk
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: \newpage
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111:
112: The hadroproduction of single $W$ bosons via the Drell-Yan process in
113: $p\overline{p}$ collisions at the CERN S$p\overline{p}$S led to the discovery
114: of this particle in 1983 \cite{Arnison:1983rp}.
115: Nowadays, this process serves as a standard candle to calibrate and monitor
116: the luminosity of hadronic collisions, since its cross section is rather
117: sizeable and $W$ bosons are straightforward to identify experimentally thanks
118: to their simple and distinct decay signature.
119: The quality of the luminosity determination is thus limited by the precision
120: to which this cross section is predicted theoretically.
121: It is, therefore, mandatory to calculate higher-order radiative corrections.
122: At present, they are known at next-to-leading order (NLO)
123: \cite{Kubar-Andre:1978uy} and next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO)
124: \cite{Hamberg:1990np} in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as well as at NLO
125: \cite{Baur:1998kt} in the electroweak sector of the standard model (SM) of
126: elementary particle physics.
127:
128: In order for the $W$ boson to acquire finite transverse momentum ($p_T$), it
129: must be produced in association with one or more other particles.
130: To lowest order (LO) in QCD, the additional particle is a gluon ($g$), quark
131: ($q$), or antiquark ($\overline{q}$), materialising as a hadron jet ($j$).
132: The corresponding partonic subprocesses are of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$.
133: Their cross sections are presently known at NLO \cite{Ellis:1981hk} and NNLO
134: \cite{Anastasiou:2003ds} in QCD, i.e.\ at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s^2)$ and
135: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s^3)$, respectively.
136: Very recently, also the one-loop electroweak corrections, at
137: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$, were considered \cite{Kuhn:2007qc}.
138: This is also the topic of the present paper.
139: However, as explained below, we actually study somewhat different cross
140: section observables and arrange for our results to be manifestly infrared (IR)
141: safe by avoiding kinematic cuts that destroy the inclusiveness of massless
142: quanta.
143: In fact, the situation is complicated by the circumstance that both photons
144: and gluons can appear as bremsstrahlung.
145:
146: The observable we thus wish to investigate is the differential cross section
147: for the inclusive hadroproduction of single $W$ bosons with finite $p_T$ at
148: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$.
149: Specifically, we concentrate on the $p_T$ distribution and the integrated
150: cross section as a function of a minimum-$p_T$ cut, leaving the distributions
151: in other observables, such as rapidity, for future work.
152: At LO, the system $X$ recoiling against the $W$ boson is purely hadronic,
153: while at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$ it can include a photon ($\gamma$).
154: We thus also have to consider $W+\gamma$ production, whose LO partonic cross
155: sections are of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, because its NLO QCD correction
156: contributes at the very order we are aiming at.
157: In fact, the real radiative corrections to $W+j$ and $W+\gamma$ production
158: receive contributions from a common set of $2\to3$ partonic subprocesses.
159: In the former (latter) case, IR singularities from the radiation of soft
160: photons (gluons) cancel against similar contributions from virtual photons
161: (gluons) by the Bloch-Nordsieck theorem \cite{BloNo}.
162: Similarly, the IR singularities from collinear final-state radiation (FSR)
163: cancel against similar contributions from the virtual corrections by the
164: Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur}.
165: The residual IR singularities from collinear initial-state radiation (ISR) are
166: factorised and absorbed at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ ($\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$)
167: into the parton distribution functions (PDFs).
168: This procedure leads to manifestly IR-safe cross section observables and
169: translates into unique and simple event selection criteria on the experimental
170: side.
171:
172: By contrast, the notion of electroweak NLO corrections to $W+j$ production
173: comprises a conceptual problem.
174: In fact, in the treatment of final-state collinear singularities caused by the
175: parallel emission of a photon from an outgoing (anti)quark line, one is led to
176: introduce a cut in an appropriate separation variable.
177: Within the collinear phase space region thus defined, the (anti)quark-photon
178: system is effectively treated as one particle whose momentum is identified
179: with that of $j$ and thus subject to an acceptance cut in transverse momentum,
180: $p_T(j)>p_T^\mathrm{min}(j)$, to ensure the experimental observation of $j$.
181: This includes phase space configurations where the photon essentially carries
182: all the momentum, while the (anti)quark can, in principle, be arbitrarily
183: soft.
184: This will not generate any soft IR singularities.
185: However, since (anti)quark and gluon jets can, in general, not be
186: distinguished experimentally on an event-by-event basis, the same
187: recombination procedure needs to be applied to a gluon-photon system in the
188: final state as well.
189: This time, a soft gluon will inevitably produce an IR singularity, which can
190: only be canceled by the NLO QCD corrections to $W+\gamma$ production, so that
191: one falls back to the symmetric procedure outlined in the preceding
192: paragraph.
193: Formally, this soft-gluon singularity can be avoided by applying the
194: $p_T^\mathrm{min}(j)$ cut just to the transverse momentum of the gluon, even
195: if it is accompanied by a collinear photon.
196: However, such a prescription is purely academic and quite unsuitable for
197: experimental implementation because (anti)quark and gluon jets are treated on
198: different footings.
199:
200: By crossing external lines, the LO partonic subprocesses of $W+\gamma$
201: hadroproduction can be converted to those of $W+j$ photoproduction with one
202: incoming photon participating directly in the hard scattering (direct
203: photoproduction).
204: The emission of photons off the proton can happen either elastically or
205: inelastically, i.e.\ the proton stays intact or is destroyed, respectively.
206: In both cases, an appropriate PDF can be evaluated in the
207: Weizs\"acker-Williams approximation \cite{kni,gsv,Martin:2004dh}.
208: Since they are of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$, these direct photoproduction
209: contributions are of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$.
210: Incoming photons can participate in the hard scattering also through their
211: quark and gluon content, leading to resolved photoproduction.
212: The contributions from direct and resolved photoproduction are formally of the
213: same order in the perturbative expansion.
214: This may be understood by observing that the PDFs of the photon have a leading
215: behaviour proportional to
216: $\alpha\ln(M^2/\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^2)\propto\alpha/\alpha_s$, where $M$ is
217: the factorisation scale and $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}$ is the asymptotic scale
218: parameter of QCD.
219: Although photoproduction contributions are parametrically suppressed by a
220: factor of $\alpha/\alpha_s$ relative to the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$
221: corrections discussed above, we shall include them in our analysis because
222: they turn out to be quite sizeable in an extensive region of phase space.
223:
224: This paper is organised as follows.
225: In Section~\ref{sec:two}, we list the partonic cross sections at LO and
226: explain how to evaluate the hadronic cross section from them.
227: In Section~\ref{sec:three}, we discuss in detail the structure of the NLO
228: corrections.
229: In Section~\ref{sec:four}, we present our numerical results for
230: $p\overline{p}$ collisions with centre-of-mass (c.m.) energy
231: $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron and $pp$ collisions with
232: $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
233:
234: \section{Conventions and LO results}
235: \label{sec:two}
236:
237: We consider the hadronic process
238: \begin{equation}
239: A(p_A)+B(p_B)\to W(p)+X,
240: \label{eq:had}
241: \end{equation}
242: where the four-momentum assignments are indicated in parentheses.
243: We work in the collinear parton model of QCD \cite{Partonmodell} with $n_f=5$
244: massless quark flavours $q=u,d,s,c,b$, neglect the masses of the incoming
245: hadrons, $A$ and $B$, and impose the acceptance cut $p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ on
246: the transverse momentum $p_T$ of the $W$ boson.
247: (We assign masses to the partons $\gamma,g,q,\overline{q}$ only to regulate
248: soft and collinear IR singularities in intermediate steps of our calculation.)
249:
250: Specifically, denoting $u_1=u$, $u_2=c$, $d_1=d$, $d_2=s$, and $d_3=b$,
251: the relevant partonic subprocesses include
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: u_i+\overline{d}_j&\to&W^++g,
254: \label{eq:udg}\\
255: u_i+g&\to&W^++d_j,
256: \label{eq:ugd}\\
257: \overline{d}_j+g&\to&W^++\overline{u}_i,
258: \label{eq:dgu}
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$,
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: u_i+\overline{d}_j&\to&W^++\gamma,
263: \label{eq:udp}\\
264: u_i+\gamma&\to&W^++d_j,
265: \label{eq:upd}\\
266: \overline{d}_j+\gamma&\to&W^++\overline{u}_i,
267: \label{eq:dpu}
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, and
270: \begin{eqnarray}
271: u_i+\overline{d}_j&\to&W^++g+\gamma,
272: \label{eq:udgp}\\
273: u_i+g&\to&W^++d_j+\gamma,
274: \label{eq:ugdp}\\
275: \overline{d}_j+g&\to&W^++\overline{u}_i+\gamma,
276: \label{eq:dgup}
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$.
279: The partonic subprocesses involving a $W^-$ boson emerge through charge
280: conjugation.
281: Processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:udp}) must be treated also at one loop,
282: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$.
283: Processes~(\ref{eq:upd}) and (\ref{eq:dpu}) contribute to direct
284: photoproduction and processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}) to resolved
285: photoproduction.
286: Since photon emission off protons happens at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$, it is
287: sufficient to deal with photoproduction at tree level.
288: In summary, we calculate the cross section of process~(\ref{eq:had}) at NLO as
289: the sum
290: \begin{equation}
291: \sigma^{AB\to WX}=\sigma_0^{Wj}+\sigma_0^{W\gamma}
292: +\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}+\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)}^{W\gamma}
293: +\sigma_0^{Wj\gamma}+\sigma_\gamma^{Wj},
294: \label{eq:sum}
295: \end{equation}
296: where $\sigma_0^{Wj}$ and $\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}$ are due to
297: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}) at tree level and one loop,
298: $\sigma_0^{W\gamma}$ and $\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)}^{W\gamma}$ are due to
299: process~(\ref{eq:udp}) at tree level and one loop,
300: $\sigma_0^{Wj\gamma}$ is due to processes~(\ref{eq:udgp})--(\ref{eq:dgup}) at
301: tree level, and
302: $\sigma_\gamma^{Wj}$ is due to processes~(\ref{eq:upd}) and (\ref{eq:dpu}) via
303: direct photoproduction and due to processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}) via
304: resolved photoproduction, both at tree-level.
305:
306: The minimum-$p_T$ cut is necessary to stay away from the regions of phase
307: space that are sensitive to the collinear IR singularities due to the
308: $q\to\gamma/g+q^\ast$, $\overline{q}\to\gamma/g+\overline{q}^\ast$,
309: $\gamma/g\to q+\overline{q}^\ast$, and $\gamma/g\to\overline{q}+q^\ast$
310: splittings, which are present already at LO.
311: Here, an asterisk marks a virtual parton.
312: The cross section $\sigma^{AB\to WX}$ of the hadronic process~(\ref{eq:had})
313: is related to the cross sections $\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc(d)}$ of the partonic
314: subprocesses,
315: \begin{equation}
316: a(p_a)+b(p_b)\to W(p)+c(p_c)(+d(p_d)),
317: \label{eq:subproc}
318: \end{equation}
319: where $a,b,c,d=\gamma,g,q,\overline{q}$ and $p_a=x_ap_A$, $p_b=x_bp_B$ with
320: scaling parameters $x_a$, $x_b$, as the incoherent sum
321: \begin{equation}
322: \sigma^{AB\to WX}(S,p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut})=\sum_{a,b,c(,d)}
323: \int_{\tau_0}^1\mathrm{d}\tau\,\mathcal{L}_{ab}^{AB}(\tau)
324: \hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc(d)}(s,p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut}),
325: \label{sigmahad}
326: \end{equation}
327: where $S=(p_A+p_B)^2$ and $s=(p_a+p_b)^2=\tau S$ are the hadronic and
328: partonic c.m.\ energies, respectively, $\tau=x_ax_b$, and
329: \begin{equation}
330: \mathcal{L}_{ab}^{AB}(\tau)=\int_{\tau}^1\frac{\mathrm{d}x_a}{x_a}
331: f_{a/A}(x_a,M^2)f_{b/B}\left(\frac{\tau}{x_a},M^2\right)
332: \end{equation}
333: is the parton luminosity defined in terms of the PDFs $f_{a/A}(x_a,M^2)$,
334: $f_{b/B}(x_b,M^2)$.
335: Here, $M$ denotes the factorisation mass scale.
336: Introducing the short-hand notation $w=M_W^2$, we have
337: \begin{equation}
338: \tau_0=\frac{\left(p_T^\mathrm{cut}+\sqrt{w+(p_T^\mathrm{cut})^2}\right)^2}
339: {S}.
340: \label{eq:tau}
341: \end{equation}
342:
343: In order to obtain $\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc(d)}$, we have to evaluate the
344: transition matrix elements $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc(d)}$ of
345: processes~(\ref{eq:subproc}), square them, average them over the initial-state
346: spins and colours, and sum them over the final-state ones, which leads to
347: $\overline{|\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc(d)}|^2}$.
348: To the order of our calculation, $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wcd}$ is calculated at
349: tree level, while $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}$ may receive also one-loop
350: contributions,
351: $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}=\mathcal{T}_0^{ab\to Wc}+\mathcal{T}_1^{ab\to Wc}$,
352: so that
353: \begin{equation}
354: \overline{\left|\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}\right|^2}
355: =\overline{\left|\mathcal{T}_0^{ab\to Wc}\right|^2}
356: +2\re\overline{\left[\left(\mathcal{T}_0^{ab\to Wc}\right)^*
357: \mathcal{T}_1^{ab\to Wc}\right]}.
358: \end{equation}
359: Then we have to integrate over the partonic phase spaces imposing the
360: minimum-$p_T$ cut.
361: In the following two subsections, we describe how this can be conveniently done
362: for the two- and three-particle final states, respectively.
363:
364: Since we are dealing with charged-current interactions of quarks, $u_i$ and
365: $d_j$, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark mixing matrix $V_{ij}$ appears.
366: At tree level, the cross sections of processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgup})
367: contain the overall factor $|V_{ij}|^2$, and a part of the one-loop
368: corrections is proportional to
369: $V_{ij}^*V_{ij^\prime}V_{i^\prime j^\prime}^*V_{i^\prime j}$,
370: where $u_{i^\prime}$ and $d_{j^\prime}$ are virtual quarks.
371: Since we neglect all down-quark masses, we can sum over the indices of the
372: virtual and outgoing down quarks to trigger the unitarity relation
373: $\sum_{j=1}^3V_{ij}V_{i^\prime j}^*=\delta_{ii^\prime}$.
374: In the case of incoming down quarks, we can absorb the residual appearances
375: of $|V_{ij}|^2$ into a redefinition of their PDFs, as \cite{Kuhn:2007qc}
376: \begin{equation}
377: \tilde f_{d_i/A}(x,M^2)=\sum_{j=1}^3\left|V_{ij}\right|^2f_{d_j/A}(x,M^2),
378: \end{equation}
379: and similarly for down antiquarks.
380: Therefore, it is sufficient to calculate the partonic cross sections for the
381: flavour-diagonal case, with $V_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$.
382:
383: \subsection{Two-particle final state}
384:
385: If parton $d$ is absent in process~(\ref{eq:subproc}), we supplement $s$ by
386: two more Mandelstam variables, $t=(p_a-p)^2$ and $u=(p_b-p)^2$.
387: Four-momentum conservation implies that $s+t+u=w$, and we have $p_T^2=tu/s$.
388: The partonic cross section entering Eq.~(\ref{sigmahad}) is evaluated as
389: \begin{equation}
390: \hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc}(s,p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut})=
391: \int_{p_T^\mathrm{cut}}^{p_T^\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{d}p_T
392: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc}}{\mathrm{d}p_T},
393: \end{equation}
394: where $p_T^\mathrm{max}=(s-w)/(2\sqrt{s})$ and
395: \begin{equation}
396: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc}}{\mathrm{d}p_T}=
397: \frac{p_T}{8\pi s\sqrt{(s-w)^2-4sp_T^2}}
398: \overline{\left|\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}\right|^2}+(t\leftrightarrow u).
399: \end{equation}
400:
401: For the reader's convenience, we list the differential cross sections of
402: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dpu}), in the conventional form
403: \begin{equation}
404: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc}}{\mathrm{d}t}=
405: \frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\overline{\left|\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}\right|^2},
406: \end{equation}
407: at LO.
408: The Feynman diagrams contributing to processes~(\ref{eq:udg}) and
409: (\ref{eq:udp}) are displayed in Figs.~\ref{DiagBornudWg} (a) and (b),
410: respectively.
411: We have
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g}}{\mathrm{d}t}&=&
414: \frac{2\pi\alpha\alpha_s}{9s_w^2}\,\frac{s^2+w^2-2tu}{s^2tu},
415: \nonumber\\
416: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\overline{d}\to W^+\gamma}}{\mathrm{d}t}&=&
417: \frac{\alpha}{12\alpha_s}\left(1+\frac{3t}{s-w}\right)^2
418: \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g}}{\mathrm{d}t},
419: \label{eq:loxs}
420: \end{eqnarray}
421: where $s_w=\sin\theta_w$ is the sine of the weak-mixing angle.
422: Since the $W$-boson mass sets the renormalisation scale of the couplings, it
423: is natural to adopt the definition of Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant
424: $\alpha$ in terms of Fermi's constant $G_F$,
425: \begin{equation}
426: \alpha=\frac{\sqrt2}{\pi}G_Fs_w^2w.
427: \end{equation}
428: The implementation of this renormalisation scheme at one loop is explained in
429: Section~\ref{sec:udg}.
430: The cross sections of processes~(\ref{eq:ugd}), (\ref{eq:dgu}),
431: (\ref{eq:upd}), and (\ref{eq:dpu}) may be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:loxs}) by
432: exploiting crossing symmetries, as
433: \begin{eqnarray}
434: s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ug\to W^+d}}{\mathrm{d}t}&=&
435: -\frac{3}{8}\left[s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g}}
436: {\mathrm{d}t}\right]_{s\leftrightarrow u},
437: \nonumber\\
438: s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{\overline{d}g\to W^+\overline{u}}}{\mathrm{d}t}
439: &=&
440: \left[s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ug\to W^+d}}{\mathrm{d}t}
441: \right]_{s\leftrightarrow t},
442: \nonumber\\
443: s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\gamma\to W^+d}}{\mathrm{d}t}&=&
444: -3\left[s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\overline{d}\to W^+\gamma}}
445: {\mathrm{d}t}\right]_{s\leftrightarrow u},
446: \nonumber\\
447: s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{\overline{d}\gamma\to W^+\overline{u}}}
448: {\mathrm{d}t}&=&
449: \left[s^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{u\gamma\to W^+d}}{\mathrm{d}t}
450: \right]_{s\leftrightarrow t}.
451: \end{eqnarray}
452:
453: \subsubsection{Three-particle final states}
454: \label{sec:tpfs}
455:
456: If parton $d$ is present in process~(\ref{eq:subproc}), then the partonic
457: cross section entering Eq.~(\ref{sigmahad}) may be obtained through a
458: four-fold phase-space integration along the lines of Ref.~\cite{DittmDoktor}.
459: We work in the partonic c.m.\ frame and choose our coordinate system so that
460: $\vec{p_a}$ points along the $z$ direction and $\vec{p_d}$ lies in the $x$-$y$
461: plane.
462: We denote the polar angle of $\vec{p_d}$ by $\vartheta$ and the azimuthal
463: angle of $\vec{p_c}$ by $\varphi$.
464: As the first three independent variables, we select $p_d^0$, $\vartheta$, and
465: $\varphi$, which take the values
466: \begin{equation}
467: 0<p_d^0<\frac{s-w}{2\sqrt{s}},\qquad
468: 0<\vartheta<\pi,\qquad
469: 0<\varphi<2\pi.
470: \end{equation}
471: In the case of process~(\ref{eq:udgp}), which contains two massless gauge
472: bosons in the final state, it is convenient to take the fourth
473: variable to be $p_c^0$, with values
474: \begin{equation}
475: \frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{s}-2p_d^0-\frac{w}{\sqrt{s}}\right)<p_c^0<
476: \frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{s}-\frac{w}{\sqrt{s}-2p_d^0}\right).
477: \end{equation}
478: We then have
479: \begin{equation}
480: \left.\frac{\mathrm{d}^4\hat{\sigma}^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g\gamma}}
481: {\mathrm{d}p_c^0\mathrm{d}p_d^0\mathrm{d}\cos\vartheta\mathrm{d}\varphi}
482: \right|_{p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut}}=
483: \frac{1}{8(2\pi)^4}\overline{\left|\mathcal{T}^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g\gamma}
484: \right|^2}\theta\left(p_T-p_T^\mathrm{cut}\right).
485: \end{equation}
486: On the other hand, in the case of processes~(\ref{eq:ugdp}) and
487: (\ref{eq:dgup}), which only contain one massless gauge boson in the final
488: state, it is more useful to choose the fourth variable to be the angle $\psi$
489: enclosed between $\vec{p}_c$ and $\vec{p}_d$, with values
490: \begin{equation}
491: 0<\psi<\pi.
492: \end{equation}
493: We then have
494: \begin{equation}
495: \left.\frac{\mathrm{d}^4\hat{\sigma}^{ug\to W^+d\gamma}}
496: {\mathrm{d}p_d^0\mathrm{d}\cos\vartheta\mathrm{d}\varphi\mathrm{d}\psi}
497: \right|_{p_T>p_T^\mathrm{cut}}=
498: \frac{p_d^0\left[\sqrt{s}\left(\sqrt{s}-2p_d^0\right)-w\right]}
499: {16(2\pi)^4\left[\sqrt{s}-2p_d^0\sin^2(\psi/2)\right]^2}
500: \overline{\left|\mathcal{T}^{ug\to W^+d\gamma}
501: \right|^2}\theta\left(p_T-p_T^\mathrm{cut}\right),
502: \end{equation}
503: and similarly for process~(\ref{eq:dgup}).
504: In order to implement the minimum-$p_T$ cut, $p_T$ needs to be expressed in
505: terms of the integration variables, which is conveniently done with the help
506: of Eqs.~(5.40) and (5.42) of Ref.~\cite{DittmDoktor} and starting from
507: \begin{equation}
508: p_T=\sqrt{\left(p_c^1+p_d^1\right)^2+\left(p_c^2+p_d^2\right)^2}.
509: \end{equation}
510:
511: \section{NLO results}
512: \label{sec:three}
513:
514: We now describe the calculation of the NLO contributions
515: $\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}$,
516: $\sigma_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)}^{W\gamma}$, and $\sigma_0^{Wj\gamma}$ of
517: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sum}) in some detail.
518:
519: We employ the following tools.
520: We generate the relevant Feynman diagrams using the symbolic program package
521: FeynArts \cite{FeynArts}, carry out the spin and colour sums using the program
522: package FormCalc \cite{FormCalc}, and perform the Passarino-Veltman reduction
523: of the tensor one-loop integrals \cite{PaVe} using the program package
524: FeynCalc \cite{FeynCalc}.
525: Subsequently, we implement the analytical results in a Fortran program.
526: We evaluate the standard scalar one-loop integrals contained in the purely
527: weak corrections using the program package LoopTools \cite{LoopTools}, which
528: incorporates the program library FF \cite{FF}.
529: The numerical integrations are performed using the program package Cuba
530: \cite{Cuba}, which provides several different integration routines and is,
531: therefore, also well suited for cross checks.
532:
533: \subsection{Virtual electroweak corrections to $W+j$ production}
534: \label{sec:udg}
535:
536: The virtual electroweak corrections of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ to
537: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}) arise from self-energy,
538: triangle, box, and counterterm diagrams.
539: They are shown for process~(\ref{eq:udg}) in
540: Figs.~\ref{selfenudWg}--\ref{counterudwg}, respectively.
541:
542: Evaluating the transition matrix element
543: $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}$ from these loop diagrams, we
544: encounter both ultraviolet (UV) and IR singularities, which need to be
545: regularised and removed.
546: As usual, we use dimensional regularisation, with $D=4-2\epsilon$ space-time
547: dimensions and 't~Hooft mass scale $\mu$, to extract the UV singularities as
548: single poles in $\epsilon$.
549: These are removed by renormalising the parameters and wave functions of
550: the LO transition matrix element $\mathcal{T}_0^{Wj}$, which leads to the
551: counterterm contribution (see Fig.~\ref{counterudwg}),
552: \begin{equation}
553: \mathcal{T}_\mathrm{CT}^{Wj}=\mathcal{T}_0^{Wj}\delta_\mathrm{CT}^{Wj}.
554: \end{equation}
555: Owing to the renormalisability of the SM, the UV singularities in
556: $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}$ cancel, and the physical limit
557: $\epsilon\to0$ can be reached smoothly.
558:
559: The electroweak on-shell renormalisation scheme uses the fine-structure
560: constant $\alpha$ defined in the Thomson limit and the physical particle
561: masses as basic parameters.
562: In order to avoid the appearance of large logarithms induced by the running of
563: $\alpha$ to the electroweak scale $M_W$ in
564: $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{O}(\alpha)}^{Wj}$, it is useful to replace $\alpha$ by
565: $G_F$ in the set of basic parameters, by substituting
566: \begin{equation}
567: G_F=\frac{\pi\alpha}{\sqrt{2}s_w^2w}\,\frac{1}{1-\Delta r},
568: \end{equation}
569: where $\Delta r$ \cite{Sirlin} contains those radiative corrections to the
570: muon lifetime which the SM introduces on top of those derived in the
571: QED-improved Fermi model.
572: In the electroweak on-shell scheme thus modified, we have
573: \begin{equation}
574: \delta_{\mathrm{CT}}^{Wj}=\delta Z_e-\frac{\delta s_w}{s_w}
575: +\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta Z_{u\overline{u}}^\mathrm{L}
576: +\delta Z_{d\overline{d}}^\mathrm{L}+\delta Z_W-\Delta r\right),
577: \end{equation}
578: where the renormalisation constants read \cite{Denner}
579: \begin{eqnarray}
580: \frac{\delta s_w}{s_w}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{c_w^2}{s_w^2}\,
581: \re\left[\frac{\Sigma_{WW}^\mathrm{T}(M_W^2)}{M_W^2}
582: -\frac{\Sigma_{ZZ}^\mathrm{T}(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2}\right],
583: \nonumber\\
584: \delta Z_e&=&\frac{1}{2}\,
585: \left.\frac{\partial\Sigma_{AA}^\mathrm{T}(q^2)}{\partial q^2}\right|_{q^2=0}
586: -\frac{s_w}{c_w}\,\frac{\Sigma_{AZ}^{\mathrm{T}}(0)}{M_Z^2},
587: \nonumber\\
588: \delta Z_W &=&-\re\left.\frac{\partial\Sigma_{WW}^\mathrm{T}(q^2)}
589: {\partial q^2}\right|_{q^2=M_W^2},
590: \nonumber\\
591: \delta Z_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{L}&=&-\re
592: \Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{L}(m_{q}^2)
593: -m_{q}^2\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial q^2}
594: \re\left[\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{L}(q^2)
595: +\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{R}(q^2)
596: +2\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{S}(q^2)\right]\right|_{q^2=m_q^2}.
597: \label{renconew}
598: \end{eqnarray}
599: Here, $\Sigma_{WW}^\mathrm{T}$, $\Sigma_{ZZ}^\mathrm{T}$,
600: $\Sigma_{AA}^\mathrm{T}$, and $\Sigma_{AZ}^\mathrm{T}$ are the transverse
601: parts of the respective electroweak gauge-boson self-energies and mixing
602: amplitudes, $\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{L}$,
603: $\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{R}$, and $\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^\mathrm{S}$
604: are the left-handed, right-handed, and scalar parts of the quark self-energy,
605: and $c_w^2=1-s_w^2$.
606:
607: The IR singularities can be of soft or collinear type.
608: The loop diagrams involving virtual photons interchanged between external
609: lines are plagued by soft IR singularities.
610: Owing to the Bloch-Nordsieck theorem \cite{BloNo}, they cancel against similar
611: singularities arising from the real emission of soft photons, to be discussed
612: in Section~\ref{sec:udgp}.
613: The loop diagrams involving external quark or antiquark lines that split into
614: virtual photons and quarks generate collinear IR singularities.
615: Such singularities also arise from the real emission of collinear photons off
616: external quark or antiquark lines, as will be explained in
617: Section~\ref{sec:udgp}.
618: Thanks to the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur},
619: collinear IR singularities from FSR are completely canceled in the sum of real
620: and virtual corrections provided that the final state is treated inclusively
621: enough.
622: On the other hand, collinear IR singularities from ISR survive and have to be
623: absorbed into the quark and antiquark PDFs.
624: For consistency, the splitting functions in the evolution equations of the PDFs
625: then need to be complemented by their $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ terms.
626: IR singularities also arise from the wave-function renormalisations in
627: Eq.~(\ref{renconew}).
628: We choose to regularise the IR singularities by assigning infinitesimal masses,
629: $\lambda$, $m_u$, and $m_d$, to the photon, the light up-type quarks, and the
630: down-type quarks, respectively.
631: This is convenient because the standard scalar one-loop integrals $C_0$ and
632: $D_0$ that emerge after the tensor reduction \cite{PaVe} are well established
633: for this regularisation prescription \cite{Beenakker:1988jr}.
634: Although the purely weak loop corrections are altogether devoid of IR
635: singularities, terms logarithmic in $m_u$ and $m_d$ are generated by the
636: tensor reduction.
637: However, these artificial IR singularities cancel among themselves.
638:
639: We emphasise that, in the treatment of both the virtual and real corrections,
640: terms depending on $\lambda$, $m_u$, and $m_d$ are extracted analytically and
641: their cancellation is established manifestly, so that the expressions used for
642: the numerical analysis do not contain these IR regulators.
643:
644: \subsection{Virtual QCD corrections to $W+\gamma$ production}
645: \label{sec:udp}
646:
647: The virtual QCD corrections of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ to
648: process~(\ref{eq:udp}) arise from the self-energy, triangle, and box diagrams
649: shown in Fig.~\ref{diagqcd} and the counterterm contribution,
650: \begin{equation}
651: \mathcal{T}_\mathrm{CT}^{W\gamma}=\mathcal{T}_0^{W\gamma}
652: \delta_\mathrm{CT}^{W\gamma}.
653: \end{equation}
654: The latter only receives contributions from the gluon-induced wave-function
655: renormalisation of the external quark lines,
656: \begin{equation}
657: \delta_\mathrm{CT}^{W\gamma}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta Z_{u\overline{u}}^g
658: +\delta Z_{d\overline{d}}^g\right),
659: \end{equation}
660: where
661: \begin{equation}
662: \delta Z_{q\overline{q}}^g=-\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{V}}(m_q^2)
663: -2 m_q^2\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial q^2}
664: \left[\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{V}}(q^2)
665: +\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{S}}(q^2)\right]\right|_{q^2=m_q^2}.
666: \end{equation}
667: Because parity is conserved within QCD, the quark self-energy has just one
668: vector part
669: $\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{V}}=\Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{L}}=
670: \Sigma_{q\overline{q}}^{g,\mathrm{R}}$.
671: Up to terms that vanish in the limit $m_q\to0$, we have
672: \begin{equation}
673: \delta Z_{q\overline{q}}^g=
674: -\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\gamma_E+\ln(4\pi)
675: -\ln\frac{m_q^2}{\mu^2}-2\ln\frac{m_q^2}{\lambda^2}+4\right]
676: +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon),
677: \end{equation}
678: where $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)=4/3$ for $N_c=3$ quark colours, $\gamma_E$ is the
679: Euler-Mascheroni constant, and $\lambda$ now represents an infinitesimal gluon
680: mass.
681:
682: \subsection{Real corrections due to $W+j+\gamma$ production}
683: \label{sec:udgp}
684:
685: The tree-level diagrams for process~(\ref{eq:udgp}) are shown in
686: Fig.~\ref{fig:udgp}.
687: They contribute at the same time to the electromagnetic bremsstrahlung in
688: process~(\ref{eq:udg}) and to the QCD bremsstrah\-lung in
689: process~(\ref{eq:udp}), which complicates the treatment of the electroweak
690: corrections to $W+j$ associated production, as explained in the Introduction.
691: The diagrams contributing to the electromagnetic bremsstrahlung in
692: processes~(\ref{eq:ugd}) and (\ref{eq:dgu}) emerge from Fig.~\ref{fig:udgp} by
693: crossing the gluon with the $u$ and $\overline{d}$ quarks, respectively.
694:
695: When the cross sections of processes~(\ref{eq:udgp})--(\ref{eq:dgup}) are
696: integrated over their three-particle phase spaces, one encounters IR
697: singularities of both soft and collinear types.
698: The former stem from the emission of soft photons and gluons and cancel
699: against similar contributions from the virtual corrections owing to the
700: Block-Nordsieck theorem \cite{BloNo}, as explained in Section~\ref{sec:udg}.
701: The latter arise when a massless gauge boson is collinearly emitted from an
702: external massless fermion line or when a massless gauge boson splits into two
703: collinear massless fermions.
704: Specifically, in process~(\ref{eq:udgp}), the photon or the gluon can be
705: emitted collinearly from the incoming $u_i$ and $\overline{d}_j$ quarks;
706: in process~(\ref{eq:ugdp}), the photon can be emitted collinearly from the
707: incoming $u_i$ quark or the outgoing $d_j$ quark, and the gluon can split
708: into a collinear $d_j\overline{d}_j$ quark pair;
709: and in process~(\ref{eq:dgup}), the photon can be emitted collinearly from the
710: incoming $\overline{d}_j$ quark or the outgoing $\overline{u}_i$ quark, and
711: the gluon can split into a collinear $u_i\overline{u}_i$ quark pair.
712: As already mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:udg}, the collinear IR singularities
713: from FSR are canceled by the virtual corrections according to the
714: Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur} if the considered
715: process is treated inclusively enough.
716: By contrast, those from ISR survive and have to be absorbed into the PDFs.
717:
718: Due to the minimum-$p_T$ cut, the photon and the gluon cannot be soft
719: simultaneously because one of them has to balance the transverse momentum of
720: the $W$ boson.
721: By the same token, there can only be one collinear situation at a time.
722: However, soft and collinear singularities do overlap, and care needs to be
723: exercised to avoid double counting.
724:
725: For consistency, also the IR singularities in the real corrections need to be
726: regularised by the photon and gluon mass $\lambda$ and the light-quark masses
727: $m_u$ and $m_d$ introduced in Sections~\ref{sec:udg} and \ref{sec:udp}.
728: As already mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:udg}, their cancellation is achieved
729: analytically, so that the expressions underlying the numerical analysis are
730: free of them.
731:
732: As in Ref.~\cite{Baur:1998kt,Diener,DieDitHol}, we employ the method of phase
733: space slicing \cite{Fabricius:1981sx} to separate the soft and collinear
734: regions of the phase space from the one where the momenta are hard and
735: non-collinear, so that the partonic cross section can be written as
736: \begin{equation}
737: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{Wj\gamma}=\hat\sigma_\mathrm{soft}^{Wj\gamma}
738: +\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{Wj\gamma}
739: +\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{hard}^{Wj\gamma}.
740: \end{equation}
741: For definiteness, let us assume that parton $d$ in process~(\ref{eq:subproc})
742: is the soft or collinearly emitted one and that partons $a$ and $c$ are the
743: ones emitting ISR and FSR, respectively.
744: In the notation introduced in Section~\ref{sec:tpfs}, the soft regions of
745: phase space are then defined by $\lambda<p_d^0<\Delta E\ll(s-w)/(2\sqrt{s})$,
746: the collinear ones for ISR and FSR by $\vartheta<\Delta\vartheta\ll\pi$ and
747: $\psi<\Delta\psi\ll\pi$, respectively, and $p_d^0>\Delta E$, and the hard and
748: non-collinear one by the rest.
749: In Sections~\ref{sec:soft} and \ref{sec:coll}, we explain how to evaluate
750: $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{soft}^{Wj\gamma}$ and
751: $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{Wj\gamma}$ analytically using appropriate
752: approximations.
753: On the other hand, $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{hard}^{Wj\gamma}$ can
754: straightforwardly be evaluated numerically with high precision
755: \cite{Monyonko:1985iq}.
756: Since $\Delta E$ is to be measured in units of $\sqrt{s}/2$, we define
757: $\delta_s=2\Delta E/\sqrt{s}$.
758: The demarcation parameters $\delta_s$, $\Delta\vartheta$, and $\Delta\psi$
759: must be chosen judiciously.
760: If the are too small, then the numerical phase-space integration performed for
761: $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{hard}^{Wj\gamma}$ becomes unstable; if they are
762: too large, the approximations adopted for
763: $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{soft}^{Wj\gamma}$ and
764: $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{Wj\gamma}$ become crude.
765: In practice, one varies $\delta_s$, $\Delta\vartheta$, and $\Delta\psi$ to
766: find the respective stability regions.
767: For the problem considered here, this is easily achieved.
768:
769: \subsubsection{Soft singularities}
770: \label{sec:soft}
771:
772: In the soft phase space regions, $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wcd}$ factorises into
773: $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wc}$ times an eikonal factor that depends on $\vec{p}_d$.
774: Squaring $\mathcal{T}^{ab\to Wcd}$, performing the spin and colour sums, and
775: integrating over $\vec{p}_d$ with the constraint $\lambda<p_d^0<\Delta E$, one
776: has \cite{Denner,ThooftVelt}
777: \begin{equation}
778: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{soft}^{ab\to Wcd}(\lambda,\Delta E)
779: =\delta_\mathrm{soft}^{ab\to Wcd}(\lambda,\Delta E)
780: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma^{ab\to Wc}.
781: \end{equation}
782: In the case of soft electromagnetic and QCD bremsstrahlung in
783: process~(\ref{eq:udgp}), we then obtain
784: \begin{eqnarray}
785: \delta_\mathrm{soft}^{u\overline{d}\to W^+g\gamma}(\lambda,\Delta E)&=&
786: -\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\left(Q_u^2\delta_{uu}+Q_d^2\delta_{dd}+\delta_{WW}
787: +2Q_uQ_d\delta_{ud}+2Q_u\delta_{uW}+2Q_d\delta_{dW}\right),
788: \nonumber\\
789: \delta_\mathrm{soft}^{u\overline{d}\to W^+\gamma g}(\lambda,\Delta E)&=&
790: -\frac{\alpha_sC_F}{2\pi}(\delta_{uu}+\delta_{dd}+2\delta_{ud}),
791: \end{eqnarray}
792: where $Q_u=2/3$ and $Q_d=-1/3$ are the fractional electric charges of the $u$
793: and $d$ quarks, respectively, and
794: \begin{eqnarray}
795: \delta_{uu}&=&\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}+\ln\frac{m_u^2}{s},
796: \nonumber\\
797: \delta_{dd}&=&\left.\delta_{uu}\right|_{m_u\leftrightarrow m_d},
798: \nonumber\\
799: \delta_{ud}&=&\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}
800: \ln\frac{m_u^2m_d^2}{s^2}
801: +\frac{1}{4}\left(\ln^2\frac{m_u^2}{s}+\ln^2\frac{m_d^2}{s}\right)
802: +\frac{\pi^2}{3},
803: \nonumber\\
804: \delta_{WW}&=&\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}+\frac{s+w}{s-w}\ln\frac{w}{s},
805: \nonumber\\
806: \delta_{uW}&=&\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}
807: \ln\frac{wm_u^2}{(w-t)^2}
808: +\frac{1}{4}\left(\ln^2\frac{m_u^2}{s}+\ln^2\frac{w}{s}\right)
809: \nonumber\\
810: &&{}+\li\left(\frac{-t}{w-t}\right)+\li\left(\frac{-u}{w-t}\right)
811: +\frac{\pi^2}{6},
812: \nonumber\\
813: \delta_{dW}&=&-\left.\delta_{uW}
814: \right|_{t\leftrightarrow u,\,m_u\leftrightarrow m_d}.
815: \label{eq:soft}
816: \end{eqnarray}
817: Here, $\li(x)=-\int_0^1\mathrm{d}t\,\ln(1-tx)/t$ is the dilogarithm, and terms
818: that vanish for $m_u=m_d=0$ have been omitted.
819:
820: Furthermore, we find the soft-photon correction factor for
821: process~(\ref{eq:ugdp}) to be
822: \begin{equation}
823: \delta_\mathrm{soft}^{ug\to W^+d\gamma}(\lambda,\Delta E)=
824: -\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\left(Q_u^2\delta_{uu}+Q_d^2\delta_{dd}+\delta_{WW}
825: +2Q_uQ_d\tilde\delta_{ud}+2Q_u\delta_{uW}+2Q_d\tilde\delta_{dW}\right),
826: \end{equation}
827: in which two terms of Eq.~(\ref{eq:soft}) are modified to be
828: \begin{eqnarray}
829: \tilde\delta_{ud}&=&\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}
830: \ln\frac{m_u^2m_d^2}{u^2}
831: +\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln^2\frac{m_u^2}{s}+\ln^2\frac{sm_d^2}{(s-w)^2}\right]
832: +\li\left(-\frac{t}{u}\right)+\frac{\pi^2}{3},
833: \nonumber\\
834: \tilde\delta_{dW}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{4(\Delta E)^2}{\lambda^2}
835: \ln\frac{wm_u^2}{(s-w)^2}
836: -\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln^2\frac{w}{s}+\ln^2\frac{sm_d^2}{(s-w)^2}\right]
837: -\li\left(1-\frac{w}{s}\right)-\frac{\pi^2}{6}.
838: \nonumber\\
839: &&
840: \end{eqnarray}
841:
842: Finally, the soft-photon correction factor for process~(\ref{eq:dgup}) emerges
843: from the one of process~(\ref{eq:ugdp}) through the simple replacement
844: \begin{equation}
845: \delta_\mathrm{soft}^{\overline{d}g\to W^+\overline{u}\gamma}(\lambda,\Delta E)
846: =\left.\delta_\mathrm{soft}^{ug\to W^+d\gamma}
847: (\lambda,\Delta E)\right|_{m_u\leftrightarrow m_d}.
848: \end{equation}
849:
850: \subsubsection{Collinear singularities}
851: \label{sec:coll}
852:
853: As explained in Section~\ref{sec:udgp}, collinear singularities arise from
854: three sources:
855: (1) the emission of a photon or gluon from an incoming quark or antiquark;
856: (2) the splitting of an incoming gluon into a quark-antiquark pair; and
857: (3) the emission of a photon from an outgoing quark or antiquark.
858: The resulting contributions to $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{Wj\gamma}$
859: all factorise into the respective LO cross sections without radiation and
860: appropriate collinear radiator functions \cite{DittmDoktor,Kleiss}.
861: In the case of ISR, this also involves a convolution with respect to the
862: fraction $z$ of four-momentum that the emitting parton passes on to the one
863: that enters the hard interaction.
864:
865: Let parton $a$ in process~(\ref{eq:subproc}) be the emitting quark $q$ and
866: parton $d$ the emitted photon or gluon.
867: Then we have \cite{DittmDoktor,Kleiss}
868: \begin{equation}
869: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{qb\to Wc\{\gamma,g\}}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta)
870: =\frac{\left\{\alpha Q_q^2,\alpha_s C_F\right\}}{2\pi}
871: \int_{z_0}^{1-\delta_s}\mathrm{d}z\,R_q^\mathrm{IS}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta,z)
872: \left.\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_0^{qb\to Wc}\right|_{p_q\to zp_q},
873: \end{equation}
874: where $\delta_s$ is introduced to exclude a slice of phase space that is both
875: soft and collinear and is already included in
876: $\hat\sigma_\mathrm{soft}^{Wj\gamma}$, $z_0=\tau_0S/s$, with $\tau_0$ being
877: defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tau}), and
878: \begin{equation}
879: R_q^{\mathrm{IS}}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta,z)=P_{q\to q}(z)
880: \left[\ln\frac{s(\Delta\vartheta)^2}{4m_q^2}-\frac{2z}{1+z^2}\right],
881: \end{equation}
882: with
883: \begin{equation}
884: P_{q\to q}(z)=\frac{1+z^2}{1-z}
885: \label{eq:pqq}
886: \end{equation}
887: being the LO $q\to q$ splitting function \cite{Altarelli:1977zs}.
888: This result readily carries over to the case when parton $a$ is an antiquark
889: $\overline{q}$.
890: Note that the c.m.\ frame is boosted along the beam axis by the collinear
891: emission of the photon or gluon.
892:
893: Now, let parton $a$ in process~(\ref{eq:subproc}) be a gluon that splits into
894: a $q\overline{q}$ pair, with $q$ being outgoing and $\overline{q}$ entering
895: the residual hard scattering.
896: Then we have \cite{DieDitHol}
897: \begin{equation}
898: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{gb\to Wcq}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta)
899: =\frac{\alpha_s T_F}{2\pi}
900: \int_{z_0}^1\mathrm{d}z\,R_g^\mathrm{IS}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta,z)
901: \left.\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_0^{\overline{q}b\to Wc}
902: \right|_{p_{\overline{q}}\to zp_{\overline{q}}},
903: \end{equation}
904: where $T_F=1/2$ and
905: \begin{equation}
906: R_g^{\mathrm{IS}}(m_q,\Delta\vartheta,z)=
907: P_{g\to q}(z)\ln\frac{s(1-z)^2(\Delta\vartheta)^2}{4m_q^2}+2z(1-z),
908: \end{equation}
909: with
910: \begin{equation}
911: P_{g\to q}(z)=z^2+(1-z)^2
912: \end{equation}
913: being the LO $g\to q$ splitting function.
914: This result readily carries over to the case when parton $d$ is an antiquark
915: $\overline{q}$.
916:
917: Finally, let parton $c$ in process~(\ref{eq:subproc}) be the emitting quark
918: $q$ and parton $d$ the emitted photon.
919: Then we have \cite{DittmDoktor,Kleiss}
920: \begin{equation}
921: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{ab\to Wq\gamma}(m_q,\Delta\psi)
922: =\frac{\alpha Q_q^2}{2\pi}
923: \int_0^{1-\tilde\delta_s}\mathrm{d}z\,R_q^\mathrm{FS}(m_q,\Delta\psi,z)
924: \mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_0^{ab\to Wq},
925: \label{eq:fsr}
926: \end{equation}
927: where $\tilde\delta_s=s\delta_s/(s-w)$ is again to avoid double counting of
928: phase space regions that are both soft and collinear, and
929: \begin{equation}
930: R_q^{\mathrm{FS}}(m_q,\Delta\psi,z)=P_{q\to q}(z)
931: \left[\ln\frac{(s-w)^2(\Delta\psi)^2}{4sm_q^2}+2\ln z-\frac{2z}{1+z^2}\right],
932: \end{equation}
933: with $P_{q\to q}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:pqq}).
934: This result readily carries over to the case when parton $c$ is an antiquark
935: $\overline{q}$.
936: The integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fsr}) is not a convolution and can easily be
937: carried out, yielding
938: \begin{equation}
939: \int_0^{1-\tilde\delta_s}\mathrm{d}z\,R_q^\mathrm{FS}(m_q,\Delta\psi,z)
940: =\left(-2\ln\tilde\delta_s-\frac{3}{2}\right)
941: \ln\frac{(s-w)^2(\Delta\psi)^2}{4sm_q^2}+2\ln\tilde\delta_s-\frac{2}{3}\pi
942: +\frac{9}{2}.
943: \end{equation}
944:
945: In order to obtain $\mathrm{d}\hat\sigma_\mathrm{coll}^{Wj\gamma}$ for one of
946: the processes~(\ref{eq:udgp})--(\ref{eq:dgup}), all possible collinear
947: emissions must be taken into account one by one.
948:
949: While the collinear IR singularities from FSR cancel upon combination with the
950: virtual corrections by the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem
951: \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur}, those from ISR survive.
952: Since their form is universal, they can be factorised and absorbed into the
953: PDFs \cite{Collins:1989gx}.
954: Adopting the modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$)
955: factorisation scheme both for the collinear singularities of relative orders
956: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$, this is achieved by
957: modifying the PDF of quark $q$ inside hadron $A$ as
958: \begin{eqnarray}
959: \lefteqn{f_{q/A}(x,M^2)\to\tilde{f}_{q/A}(x,M^2)=
960: f_{q/A}(x,M^2)\left\{1-\frac{\alpha Q_q^2+\alpha_sC_F}{\pi}
961: \left[\left(\ln\delta_s+\frac{3}{4}\right)\ln\frac{M^2}{m_q^2}
962: \right.\right.}
963: \nonumber\\
964: &&{}-\left.\left.\ln^2\delta_s-\ln\delta_s+1\vphantom{\frac{M^2}{m_q^2}}
965: \right]\right\}
966: -\int_x^{1-\delta_s}\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{z}\,f_{q/A}\left(\frac{x}{z},M^2\right)
967: \frac{\alpha Q_q^2+\alpha_sC_F}{2\pi}P_{q\to q}(z)
968: \nonumber\\
969: &&{}\times
970: \left[\ln\frac{M^2}{(1-z)^2m_q^2}-1\right]
971: -\int_{x}^1\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{z}\,f_{g/A}\left(\frac{x}{z},M^2\right)
972: \frac{\alpha_s T_F}{2\pi}P_{g\to q}(z)\ln\frac{M^2}{m_q^2},\qquad\qquad\qquad
973: \end{eqnarray}
974: where $M$ is the factorisation mass scale, which separates the perturbative
975: and non-perturbative parts of the hadronic cross section.
976:
977: \section{Numerical results}
978: \label{sec:four}
979:
980: We are now in a position to present our numerical results.
981: We start by specifying our choice of input.
982: We adopt the values $G_F=1.6637\times10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$, $M_W=80.403$~GeV,
983: $M_Z=91.1876$~GeV, and $m_t=174.2$~GeV recently quoted by the Particle Data
984: Group \cite{pdg}, take the other $n_f=5$ quarks to be massless partons, and
985: assume $M_H=120$~GeV, which is presently compatible with the direct search
986: limits and the bounds from the electroweak precision tests \cite{pdg}.
987: We take the absolute values of the CKM matrix elements to be \cite{pdg}
988: \begin{equation}
989: \begin{array}{lll}
990: |V_{ud}|=0.9377, & |V_{us}|=0.2257, & |V_{cd}|=0.230, \\
991: |V_{cs}|=0.957, & |V_{cb}|=41.6\times10^{-3}, & |V_{ub}|=4.31\times 10^{-3}.
992: \end{array}
993: \end{equation}
994: Since we are working at LO in QCD, we employ the one-loop formula for
995: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$.
996: We use the LO proton PDF set \verb/CTEQ6L1/ by the Coordinated
997: Theoretical-Experimental Project on QCD (CTEQ) \cite{CTEQ}, with
998: $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{(5)}=165$~MeV.
999: In the case of photoproduction, we add the photon spectra for elastic
1000: \cite{kni} and inelastic \cite{gsv,Martin:2004dh} scattering elaborated in
1001: the Weizs\"acker-Williams approximation.
1002: In the latter case, we use the more recent set by Martin, Roberts, Stirling,
1003: and Thorne (\verb/MRSTQED04/) \cite{Martin:2004dh} as our default, and the set
1004: by Gl\"uck, Stratmann, and Vogelsang (\verb/GSV/) \cite{gsv} to assess the
1005: theoretical uncertainty from this source.
1006: %In the case of resolved photoproduction, we use the LO photon PDFs by Cornet,
1007: %Jankowski, Krawczyk, and Lorca (\verb/CJKL/) \cite{Cornet:2002iy}.
1008: We choose the renormalisation and factorisation scales to be
1009: $\mu=M=\xi m_T^\mathrm{cut}$, where
1010: $m_T^\mathrm{cut}=\sqrt{(p_T^\mathrm{cut})^2+M_W^2}$ is the minimum
1011: transverse mass of the produced $W$ boson and $\xi$ is introduced to estimate
1012: the theoretical uncertainty.
1013: Unless otherwise stated, we use the default value $\xi=1$.
1014:
1015: We consider the total cross sections of $p\overline{p}\to W^\pm+X$ at the
1016: Tevatron (run~II) with $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV and $pp\to W^\pm+X$ at the LHC with
1017: $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV as functions of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$.
1018: By numerically differentiating the latter with respect to $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$,
1019: we also obtain the corresponding $p_T$ distributions as
1020: $\mathrm{d}\sigma/\mathrm{d}p_T=-\left.\mathrm{d}\sigma(p_T^\mathrm{cut})/
1021: \mathrm{d}p_T^\mathrm{cut}\right|_{p_T^\mathrm{cut}=p_T}$.
1022: Owing to the baryon symmetry of the initial state, the results for $W^+$ and
1023: $W^-$ bosons are identical at the Tevatron, and it is sufficient to study one
1024: of them.
1025: By contrast, $W^+$-boson production is favoured at the LHC because the proton
1026: most frequently interacts via a $u$ quark.
1027: Therefore, it is necessary to study the production of $W^+$ and $W^-$ bosons
1028: separately at the LHC.
1029: We compare the contributions of four different orders:
1030: (1) the LO contribution of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ from
1031: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}), where the system $X$ accompanying
1032: the $W$ boson contains a hadron jet;
1033: (2) the LO contribution of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ from process~(\ref{eq:udp}),
1034: where $X$ contains a prompt photon;
1035: (3) the NLO contribution of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$ comprising
1036: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:udp}) at one loop as well as
1037: processes~(\ref{eq:udgp})--(\ref{eq:dgup}) at tree level, where $X$ contains
1038: a hadron jet, a prompt photon, or both; and
1039: (4) the LO contributions of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ from
1040: processes~(\ref{eq:upd}) and (\ref{eq:dpu}) via direct photoproduction and
1041: from processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:dgu}) via resolved photoproduction,
1042: where $X$ contains a hadron jet and, in the case of elastic photoproduction,
1043: also the scattered proton or antiproton.
1044: Since we consider inclusive one-particle production, we do not use any
1045: information on the composition of $X$, i.e.\ we include all possibilities.
1046: In the following, we regard the sum of contributions (1) and (2) as LO and
1047: sum of contributions (1)--(4) as NLO unless the perturbative orders are
1048: explicitly specified in terms of coupling constants.
1049: We thus define the correction factor $K$ to be the NLO to LO ratio with this
1050: understanding.
1051:
1052: Let us now discuss the numerical results and their phenomenological
1053: implications in detail.
1054: Specifically, Figs.~\ref{fig:Tev}, \ref{fig:K}(a), and \ref{fig:xi}(a) refer
1055: to the Tevatron, while Figs~\ref{fig:K}(b), \ref{fig:xi}(b), \ref{fig:LHCp},
1056: \ref{fig:LHCm}, and \ref{fig:ptom} refer to the LHC.
1057: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev}(a) the NLO result for the total cross section as a
1058: function of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ is compared with the LO contributions of
1059: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ as well as with the
1060: photoproduction contribution of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$.
1061: The $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ results exhibit
1062: very similar line shapes, but the normalisation of the latter is suppressed by
1063: a factor of about 500.
1064: This may be qualitatively understood from the partonic cross section formulae
1065: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:loxs}) and by noticing that the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$
1066: contributions from the Compton-like processes~(\ref{eq:ugd}) and
1067: (\ref{eq:dgu}), which have no counterparts in $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, are
1068: significantly enhanced by the gluon PDF.
1069: As a consequence, the LO result is almost entirely exhausted by the
1070: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ contribution.
1071:
1072: The inclusion of the NLO correction leads to a moderate reduction in cross
1073: section, which increases in magnitude with $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$, reaching about
1074: $-4\%$ for $p_T^\mathrm{cut}=200$~GeV, as may be seen from
1075: Fig.~\ref{fig:K}(a), where the $K$ factor is depicted.
1076:
1077: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev}(a), also the photoproduction contribution is shown.
1078: As explained above, we have to distinguish between elastic and inelastic
1079: scattering off the proton on the one hand, and between direct and resolved
1080: photons on the other hand, so that, altogether, we have four different
1081: contributions, which all formally contribute at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$.
1082: The resolved-photon contributions turn out to be small against the
1083: direct-photon ones and are, therefore, not included in Fig.~\ref{fig:K}(a).
1084: As for the combined direct-photoproduction contribution, we observe from
1085: Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev}(a), that, except for small values of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$, it
1086: overshoots the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ contribution, although it is formally
1087: suppressed by one power of $\alpha$!
1088: Detailed inspection reveals that this unexpected enhancement can be traced to
1089: the direct-photoproduction diagram involving the triple-gauge-boson coupling
1090: and the space-like $W$-boson exchange, which significantly contributes at
1091: large values of $\sqrt{s}$.
1092: In fact, for a fixed value of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$, the total cross sections of
1093: processes~(\ref{eq:upd}) and (\ref{eq:dpu}) have an asymptotic large-$s$
1094: behaviour proportional to $1/(m_T^\mathrm{cut})^2$, while those of
1095: processes~(\ref{eq:udg})--(\ref{eq:udp}) behave as $\ln s/s$.
1096: Consequently, photoproduction appreciably contributes to the $K$ factor, as is
1097: apparent from Fig.~\ref{fig:K}(a), which also shows the photoproduction to LO
1098: ratios for elastic and inelastic scattering.
1099: The freedom in the choice of the inelastic photon content of the proton is
1100: likely to be the largest source of theoretical uncertainty in the
1101: photoproduction cross section.
1102: In order to get an idea of this uncertainty, we display in Fig.~\ref{fig:K}(a)
1103: also the inelastic-photoproduction to LO ratio evaluated with the \verb/GSV/
1104: photon spectrum for inelastic scattering.
1105: The result is roughly a factor of two smaller than our default prediction
1106: based on the \verb/MRSTQED04/ spectrum.
1107:
1108: In Fig.~\ref{fig:xi}(a), we examine the theoretical uncertainties in the
1109: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, NLO, and
1110: photoproduction results due to the freedom in setting the renormalisation and
1111: factorisation scales by exhibiting their $\xi$ dependencies relative to their
1112: default values at $\xi=1$.
1113: The $\xi$ dependencies of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ and
1114: direct-photoproduction results stem solely from the factorisation scale $M$
1115: and are rather feeble, while those of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ and
1116: resolved-photoproduction results are also linked to the renormalisation scale
1117: $\mu$ of $\alpha_s(\mu)$ and are more pronounced, but still not dramatic.
1118: The scale variation of the LO result amounts to less than $\pm15\%$ for
1119: $1/2<\xi<2$.
1120: It is only slightly reduced by the inclusion of the NLO correction.
1121: This is expected because the NLO result is still linear in $\alpha_s(\mu)$, so
1122: that the $\mu$ dependence of $\alpha_s(\mu)$ is not compensated yet.
1123:
1124: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev}(b), the analysis of Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev}(a) is repeated
1125: for the $p_T$ distribution.
1126: We observe that the line shapes and relative normalisations of the various
1127: distributions are very similar to those in Figs.~\ref{fig:Tev}(a) and the
1128: same comments apply.
1129:
1130: Turning to the LHC, we can essentially repeat the above discussion for the
1131: Tevatron, except that we have to take into account the difference between
1132: $W^+$ and $W^-$ boson production.
1133: Thus, Fig.~\ref{fig:Tev} has two LHC counterparts, Figs.~\ref{fig:LHCp} and
1134: \ref{fig:LHCm}, for the $W^+$ and $W^-$ bosons, respectively.
1135: To illustrate this difference more explicitly, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptom}
1136: the $W^+$ to $W^-$ ratios of the respective results from Figs.~\ref{fig:LHCp}
1137: and \ref{fig:LHCm}.
1138: For simplicity, Figs.~\ref{fig:K}(b) and \ref{fig:xi}(b), the LHC counterparts
1139: of Figs.~\ref{fig:K}(a) and \ref{fig:xi}(a), refer to the averages of the
1140: results for $W^+$ and $W^-$ bosons.
1141: In the following, we only focus on those features which are specific for the
1142: LHC.
1143: From Figs.~\ref{fig:LHCp} and \ref{fig:LHCm}, we observe that the gaps between
1144: the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ results are
1145: increased by about a factor of two, to reach three orders of magnitude.
1146: This is mainly because the Compton-like processes~(\ref{eq:ugd}) and
1147: (\ref{eq:dgu}) benefit from the extended dominance of the gluon PDF at small
1148: values of $x$.
1149: Furthermore, the photoproduction contributions now significantly exceed the
1150: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ ones throughout the entire $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ and
1151: $p_T$ ranges.
1152: From Fig.~\ref{fig:ptom}, we see that the $W^+$ to $W^-$ ratios take values in
1153: excess of unity, as expected, and strongly increase with increasing values of
1154: $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$.
1155: Comparing Figs.~\ref{fig:K}(a) and (b), we find that the $K$ factors are
1156: significantly amplified as one passes from the Tevatron to the LHC.
1157: This is due to the fact that the Sudakov logarithms, which originate
1158: from triangle and box diagrams, become quite sizeable at the large values of
1159: $\sqrt{s}$ and $p_T$ that can be reached at the LHC.
1160: This issue was already dwelled on in Ref.~\cite{Kuhn:2007qc}, to which we
1161: refer the interested reader.
1162: Finally, comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:xi}(a) and (b), we conclude that the $\xi$
1163: dependence is generally somewhat smaller at the LHC.
1164:
1165: \section{Conclusions}
1166:
1167: We studied the effect of electroweak radiative corrections at first order on
1168: the cross section of the inclusive hadroproduction of single $W$ bosons with
1169: finite values of $p_T$, putting special emphasis on the notion of
1170: infrared-save observables with a democratic treatment of hadron jets initiated
1171: by (anti)quarks and gluons.
1172: This is indispensable because, as a matter of principle, a collinear
1173: gluon-photon system cannot be distinguished from a single gluon with the same
1174: momentum, so that a minimum-transverse-momentum cut on the gluon is an
1175: inadequate tool to prevent a soft-gluon singularity.
1176: This led us to include the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ correction to $W+\gamma$
1177: production along with the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ correction to $W+j$
1178: production, both contributing at absolute order
1179: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$.
1180: We also considered the contribution from events where one of the colliding
1181: hadrons interacts via a real photon, which is of absolute order
1182: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$.
1183: The hadron can then either stay intact (elastic scattering) or be destroyed
1184: (inelastic scattering), and the photon can participate in the hard scattering
1185: directly (direct photoproduction) or via its quark and gluon content (resolved
1186: photoproduction), so that four combinations are possible.
1187:
1188: We extracted the UV singularities using dimensional regularisation and removed
1189: them by renormalisation in the on-shell scheme.
1190: We regularised the soft and collinear IR singularities by means of
1191: infinitesimal photon, gluon, and quark masses, $\lambda$, $m_u$, and $m_d$,
1192: respectively.
1193: We used the phase-space slicing method, with cuts $\delta_s$,
1194: $\Delta\vartheta$, and $\Delta\psi$ on the scaled photon and gluon energies
1195: and on the separation angles in the initial and final states, respectively, to
1196: isolate the soft and collinear singularities within the corrections from real
1197: particle radiation.
1198: We achieved the cancellation of $\lambda$, $m_u$, and $m_d$ analytically and
1199: ensured that the numerical results are insensitive to variations of $\delta_s$,
1200: $\Delta\vartheta$, and $\Delta\psi$ within wide ranges about their selected
1201: values.
1202:
1203: We presented theoretical predictions for the total cross sections with a
1204: minimum-$p_T$ cut and for the $p_T$ distributions to be measured in
1205: $p\overline{p}$ collisions with $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV at run~II at the Tevatron
1206: and in $pp$ collisions with $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV at the LHC, and estimated the
1207: theoretical uncertainties from the scale setting ambiguities.
1208: We found that considerably less than 1\% of all $W+X$ events contain a prompt
1209: photon.
1210: The corrections considered turned out to be negative and to increase in
1211: magnitude with the value of $p_T$.
1212: While the reduction is moderate at the Tevatron, reaching about $-4\%$ at
1213: $p_T=200$~GeV, it can be quite sizeable at the LHC, of order $-30\%$ at
1214: $p_T=2$~TeV, which is due to the well-known enhancement by Sudakov logarithms.
1215: It is an interesting new finding that the photoproduction contribution is
1216: considerably larger than expected from the formal order of couplings.
1217: In fact, it compensates an appreciable part of the reduction due to the
1218: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2\alpha_s)$ correction.
1219:
1220: \section*{Acknowledgement}
1221:
1222: We are grateful to Stefan Dittmaier for helpful theoretical and practical
1223: advice, to Gustav Kramer for useful advice regarding phase space slicing, and
1224: to Thomas Hahn, Max Huber, and Frank Fugel for beneficial discussions.
1225: The work of B.A.K. was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry
1226: for Education and Research BMBF through Grant No.\ 05~HT6GUA.
1227:
1228: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1229:
1230: \bibitem{Arnison:1983rp}
1231: UA1 Collaboration, G.~Arnison, et al.,
1232: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 122 (1983) 103;\\
1233: UA2 Collaboration, M.~Banner, et al.,
1234: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 122 (1983) 476.
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Kubar-Andre:1978uy}
1237: J.~Kubar-Andre, F.E.~Paige,
1238: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 19 (1979) 221;\\
1239: K.~Harada, T.~Kaneko, N.~Sakai,
1240: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 155 (1979) 169;\\
1241: K.~Harada, T.~Kaneko, N.~Sakai,
1242: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 165 (1980) 545, Erratum;\\
1243: G.~Altarelli, R.K.~Ellis, G.~Martinelli,
1244: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 157 (1979) 461;\\
1245: P.~Aurenche, J.~Lindfors,
1246: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 185 (1981) 274.
1247:
1248: \bibitem{Hamberg:1990np}
1249: R.~Hamberg, W.L.~van Neerven, T.~Matsuura,
1250: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 359 (1991) 343;\\
1251: R.~Hamberg, W.L.~van Neerven, T.~Matsuura,
1252: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 644 (2002) 403, Erratum;\\
1253: R.V.~Harlander, W.B.~Kilgore,
1254: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 88 (2002) 201801.
1255:
1256: \bibitem{Baur:1998kt}
1257: U.~Baur, S.~Keller, D.~Wackeroth,
1258: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 59 (1999) 013002;\\
1259: S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kr\"amer,
1260: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 65 (2002) 073007.
1261:
1262: \bibitem{Ellis:1981hk}
1263: R.K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, R. Petronzio,
1264: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 211 (1983) 106;\\
1265: P.B.~Arnold, M.H.~Reno,
1266: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 319 (1989) 37;\\
1267: P.B.~Arnold, M.H.~Reno,
1268: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 330 (1990) 284, Erratum;\\
1269: R.J. Gonsalves, J. Pawlowski, C.-F. Wai,
1270: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 40 (1989) 2245;\\
1271: F.T. Brandt, G. Kramer, S.L. Nyeo,
1272: Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A 6 (1991) 3973;\\
1273: W.T. Giele, E.W.N. Glover, D.A. Kosower,
1274: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 403 (1993) 633;\\
1275: L.J.~Dixon, Z. Kunszt, A. Signer,
1276: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 531 (1998) 3.
1277:
1278: \bibitem{Anastasiou:2003ds}
1279: C.~Anastasiou, L.J.~Dixon, K.~Melnikov, F.~Petriello,
1280: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 69 (2004) 094008;\\
1281: K.~Melnikov, F.~Petriello,
1282: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 96 (2006) 231803;\\
1283: K.~Melnikov, F.~Petriello,
1284: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 74 (2006) 114017.
1285:
1286: \bibitem{Kuhn:2007qc}
1287: J.H.~K\"uhn, A.~Kulesza, S.~Pozzorini, M.~Schulze,
1288: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 651 (2007) 160.
1289:
1290: \bibitem{BloNo}
1291: F.~Bloch, A.~Nordsieck,
1292: Phys.\ Rev.\ 52 (1937) 54.
1293:
1294: \bibitem{Kinoshita:1962ur}
1295: T.~Kinoshita,
1296: J. Math.\ Phys.\ 3 (1962) 650;\\
1297: T.D. Lee, M. Nauenberg,
1298: Phys.\ Rev.\ 133 (1964) B1549.
1299:
1300: \bibitem{kni}
1301: B.A.~Kniehl,
1302: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 254 (1991) 267.
1303:
1304: \bibitem{gsv}
1305: M.~Gl\"uck, M.~Stratmann, W.~Vogelsang,
1306: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 343 (1995) 399.
1307:
1308: \bibitem{Martin:2004dh}
1309: A.D.~Martin, R.G.~Roberts, W.J.~Stirling, R.S.~Thorne,
1310: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 39 (2005) 155.
1311:
1312: \bibitem{Partonmodell}
1313: J.D.~Bjorken, E.A.~Paschos,
1314: Phys.\ Rev.\ 185 (1969) 1975;\\
1315: R.P.~Feynman,
1316: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 23 (1969) 1415.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{DittmDoktor}
1319: S.~Dittmaier, Ph.D. Thesis, W\"urzburg, 1993.
1320:
1321: \bibitem{FeynArts}
1322: J.~K\"ublbeck, M.~B\"ohm, A.~Denner,
1323: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 60 (1990) 165;\\
1324: T.~Hahn,
1325: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 140 (2001) 418.
1326:
1327: \bibitem{FormCalc}
1328: T.~Hahn, M.~P\~{e}rez-Victoria,
1329: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 118 (1999) 153.
1330:
1331: \bibitem{PaVe}
1332: G.~Passarino, M.~Veltman,
1333: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 160 (1979) 151.
1334:
1335: \bibitem{FeynCalc}
1336: R.~Mertig, M.~B\"ohm, A.~Denner,
1337: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 64 (1991) 345.
1338:
1339: \bibitem{LoopTools}
1340: T.~Hahn,
1341: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B 30 (1999) 3469;\\
1342: T.~Hahn,
1343: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) 89 (2000) 231;\\
1344: T.~Hahn,
1345: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) 157 (2006) 236.
1346:
1347: \bibitem{FF}
1348: G.J.~van Oldenborgh,
1349: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 66 (1991) 1.
1350:
1351: \bibitem{Cuba}
1352: T.~Hahn,
1353: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 168 (2005) 78.
1354:
1355: \bibitem{Sirlin}
1356: A.~Sirlin,
1357: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 22 (1980) 971.
1358:
1359: \bibitem{Denner}
1360: M.~B\"ohm, H.~Spiesberger, W.~Hollik,
1361: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ 34 (1986) 687;\\
1362: W.F.L.~Hollik,
1363: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ 38 (1990) 165;\\
1364: A.~Denner,
1365: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ 41 (1993) 307.
1366:
1367: \bibitem{Beenakker:1988jr}
1368: W.~Beenakker, A.~Denner,
1369: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 338 (1990) 349;\\
1370: S.~Dittmaier,
1371: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 675 (2003) 447.
1372:
1373: \bibitem{Diener}
1374: M.L.~Ciccolini, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kr\"amer,
1375: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 68 (2003) 073003;\\
1376: K.-P.O.~Diener, S.~Dittmaier, W.~Hollik,
1377: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 69 (2004) 073005.
1378:
1379: \bibitem{DieDitHol}
1380: K.-P.O.~Diener, S.~Dittmaier, W.~Hollik,
1381: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 72 (2005) 093002.
1382:
1383: \bibitem{Fabricius:1981sx}
1384: K.~Fabricius, I.~Schmitt, G.~Kramer, G.~Schierholz,
1385: Z.\ Phys.\ C 11 (1981) 315;\\
1386: G.~Kramer, B.~Lampe,
1387: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ 37 (1989) 161.
1388:
1389: \bibitem{Monyonko:1985iq}
1390: N.M.~Monyonko, J.H.~Reid, M.A.~Samuel, G.~Tupper,
1391: Z.\ Phys.\ C 29 (1985) 381;\\
1392: F.K.~Diakonos, O.~Korakianitis, C.G.~Papadopoulos, C.~Philippides,
1393: W.J.~Stirling,
1394: Phys.\ Lett.\ B 303 (1993) 177.
1395:
1396: \bibitem{ThooftVelt}
1397: G.~'t~Hooft, M.~Veltman,
1398: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 153 (1997) 365.
1399:
1400: \bibitem{Kleiss}
1401: R.~Kleiss,
1402: Z. Phys.\ C 33 (1987) 433.
1403:
1404: \bibitem{Altarelli:1977zs}
1405: G.~Altarelli, G.~Parisi,
1406: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 126 (1977) 298.
1407:
1408: \bibitem{Collins:1989gx}
1409: J.C.~Collins, D.E.~Soper, G.~Sterman,
1410: Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High Energy Phys.\ 5 (1988) 1.
1411:
1412: \bibitem{pdg}
1413: Particle Data Group, W.-M.~Yao, et al.,
1414: J. Phys.\ G 33 (2006) 1.
1415:
1416: \bibitem{CTEQ}
1417: CTEQ Collaboration,
1418: J.~Pumplin, D.R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.-L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky, W.-K.~Tung,
1419: JHEP 0207 (2002) 012.
1420:
1421: \end{thebibliography}
1422:
1423: \begin{figure}[ht]
1424: \begin{center}
1425: \input{diagudWg.tex}
1426: \input{Wgammaproddiag.tex}
1427: \end{center}
1428: \caption{Tree-level diagrams of (a) process~(\ref{eq:udg}) and (b)
1429: process~(\ref{eq:udp}).
1430: The tree-level diagrams of processes~(\ref{eq:ugd}), (\ref{eq:dgu}),
1431: (\ref{eq:upd}), and (\ref{eq:dpu}) emerge through crossing.}
1432: \label{DiagBornudWg}
1433: \end{figure}
1434:
1435: \begin{figure}[ht]
1436: \begin{center}
1437: \input{selfenudWg.tex}
1438: \caption{$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ self-energy diagrams of process~(\ref{eq:udg}).}
1439: \label{selfenudWg}
1440: \end{center}
1441: \end{figure}
1442:
1443: \begin{figure}[ht]
1444: \begin{center}
1445: \input{diagtriagudWg.tex}
1446: \caption{$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ triangle diagrams of process~(\ref{eq:udg}).}
1447: \label{triagudWg}
1448: \end{center}
1449: \end{figure}
1450:
1451: \begin{figure}[ht]
1452: \begin{center}
1453: \input{udWgboxes.tex}
1454: \caption{$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ box diagrams of process~(\ref{eq:udg}).}
1455: \label{boxesudWg}
1456: \end{center}
1457: \end{figure}
1458:
1459: \begin{figure}[ht]
1460: \begin{center}
1461: \input{counterudWg.tex}
1462: \caption{$\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ counterterm diagrams of process~(\ref{eq:udg}).}
1463: \label{counterudwg}
1464: \end{center}
1465: \end{figure}
1466:
1467: \begin{figure}[ht]
1468: \begin{center}
1469: \input{QCDdiag.tex}
1470: \caption{$\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ self-energy, triangle, and box diagrams of
1471: process~(\ref{eq:udp}).}
1472: \label{diagqcd}
1473: \end{center}
1474: \end{figure}
1475:
1476: \begin{figure}[ht]
1477: \begin{center}
1478: \input{diagudWgbrems.tex}
1479: \caption{Tree-level diagrams of process~(\ref{eq:udgp}).
1480: The tree-level diagrams of processes~(\ref{eq:ugdp}) and (\ref{eq:dgup})
1481: emerge through crossing.}
1482: \label{fig:udgp}
1483: \end{center}
1484: \end{figure}
1485:
1486: \begin{figure}[ht]
1487: \begin{center}
1488: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1489: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1490: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1491: {plot_Tev_TotWQ_cteq6.eps}
1492: }
1493: &
1494: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1495: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1496: {plot_Tev_Difkt_cteq6.eps}
1497: }
1498: \\
1499: (a) & (b)
1500: \end{tabular}
1501: \caption{(a) Total cross section as a function of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ and (b)
1502: $p_T$ distribution of $p\overline{p}\to W^++X$ for $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV
1503: (Tevatron run~II).
1504: The NLO results are compared with those of orders
1505: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, and
1506: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ via photoproduction.}
1507: \label{fig:Tev}
1508: \end{center}
1509: \end{figure}
1510:
1511: \begin{figure}[ht]
1512: \begin{center}
1513: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1514: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1515: \includegraphics[bb=170 430 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1516: {plot_Tev_TotWQrel_cteq6.eps}
1517: }
1518: &
1519: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1520: \includegraphics[bb=170 430 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1521: {plot_LHC_TotWQrel_cteq6.eps}
1522: }
1523: \\
1524: (a) & (b)
1525: \end{tabular}
1526: \caption{NLO corrections ($K-1$), with and without the photoproduction
1527: contributions, to the total cross sections of (a)
1528: $p\overline{p}\to W^++X$ for $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV (Tevatron run~II) and of (b)
1529: $pp\to W^\pm+X$ for $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV (LHC) as functions $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$.
1530: For comparison, also the contributions due to elastic and inelastic
1531: photoproduction normalised to the LO results are shown.
1532: In the latter case, the evaluation is also performed with the {\tt GSV} PDFs.}
1533: \label{fig:K}
1534: \end{center}
1535: \end{figure}
1536:
1537: \begin{figure}[ht]
1538: \begin{center}
1539: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1540: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1541: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1542: {plot_Tev_facscale_cteq6.eps}
1543: }
1544: &
1545: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1546: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1547: {plot_LHC_facscale_cteq6.eps}
1548: }
1549: \\
1550: (a) & (b)
1551: \end{tabular}
1552: \caption{Total cross sections of (a) $p\overline{p}\to W^++X$ for
1553: $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV and $p_T^\mathrm{cut}=20$~GeV (Tevatron run~II) and of (b)
1554: $pp\to W^\pm+X$ for $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV and $p_T^\mathrm{cut}=200$~GeV (LHC) as
1555: functions of $\xi$ normalised to their default values for $\xi=1$.
1556: The NLO results are compared with those of orders
1557: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, and
1558: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ via photoproduction.}
1559: \label{fig:xi}
1560: \end{center}
1561: \end{figure}
1562:
1563: \begin{figure}[ht]
1564: \begin{center}
1565: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1566: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1567: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1568: {plot_LHS_TotWQ_cteq6.eps}
1569: }
1570: &
1571: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1572: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1573: {plot_LHC_Difkt_cteq6.eps}
1574: }
1575: \\
1576: (a) & (b)
1577: \end{tabular}
1578: \caption{(a) Total cross section as a function of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ and (b)
1579: $p_T$ distribution of $pp\to W^++X$ for $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV (LHC).
1580: The NLO results are compared with those of orders
1581: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, and
1582: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ via photoproduction.}
1583: \label{fig:LHCp}
1584: \end{center}
1585: \end{figure}
1586:
1587: \begin{figure}[ht]
1588: \begin{center}
1589: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1590: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1591: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1592: {plot_LHC_TotWQMin_cteq6.eps}
1593: }
1594: &
1595: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{
1596: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1597: {plot_LHC_DifktMin_cteq6.eps}
1598: }
1599: \\
1600: (a) & (b)
1601: \end{tabular}
1602: \caption{(a) Total cross section as a function of $p_T^\mathrm{cut}$ and (b)
1603: $p_T$ distribution of $pp\to W^-+X$ for $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV (LHC).
1604: The NLO results are compared with those of orders
1605: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$, $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$, and
1606: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3)$ via photoproduction.}
1607: \label{fig:LHCm}
1608: \end{center}
1609: \end{figure}
1610:
1611: \begin{figure}[ht]
1612: \begin{center}
1613: \includegraphics[bb=170 460 425 705,width=0.45\textwidth]%
1614: {plot_LHC_PlustoMinus_cteq6.eps}
1615: \caption{Ratios of the respective results for $W^+$ and $W^-$ bosons shown in
1616: Figs.~\ref{fig:LHCp}(a) and \ref{fig:LHCm}(a).}
1617: \label{fig:ptom}
1618: \end{center}
1619: \end{figure}
1620:
1621: \end{document}
1622: